Becoming an Instructor & related FI questions
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Formidable? Moi? I'm not big enough to be formidable. 5ft 2ins people can't be formidable; it doesn't work. 
Determined? I guess so. If I want something I leave no stone unturned. I think I was probably a terrier in a past life. 
Anyway, I can't see the schools caring about whether you've got a Class 1 medical or not. After all, until quite recently rotary instructors just got 200 hours and did an FI course. I missed that route by about a year. And I don't think they had Class 1s. I don't know what happens to the ones now with grandfather rights, and there are loads around.
G-STRING, what part of Wales are you in? Just curious, that's all.
Determined? I guess so. If I want something I leave no stone unturned. I think I was probably a terrier in a past life. Anyway, I can't see the schools caring about whether you've got a Class 1 medical or not. After all, until quite recently rotary instructors just got 200 hours and did an FI course. I missed that route by about a year. And I don't think they had Class 1s. I don't know what happens to the ones now with grandfather rights, and there are loads around.
G-STRING, what part of Wales are you in? Just curious, that's all.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well G-STRING, they seem to be desperate for rotary instructors down on the south coast; I keep seeing ads. I doubt if they'll give a damn what sort of medical or qualifications you've got, so long as it keeps the CAA happy. And instructors in the north can't afford to move down there, so you can probably take your pick of schools. I'll probably be getting quite jealous of all the work you have in a couple of years. 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirly
Thanks for your input on this subject. On the subject of yourself, how long did it take you, start to finish, to get your rotary FI? You state yourself that you were older than I was when you started - did you find this a problem, or wasn't it an issue?
Lastly, did you find the course easy, hard, or somewhere in the middle!
Thanks for your input on this subject. On the subject of yourself, how long did it take you, start to finish, to get your rotary FI? You state yourself that you were older than I was when you started - did you find this a problem, or wasn't it an issue?
Lastly, did you find the course easy, hard, or somewhere in the middle!
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-STRING,
When I decided to get a CPL and FI rating, everyone seemed really surprised. I thought that was because of my age; I mean, it did seem kinda silly in the normal way one looks at things to be spending all that money at that age. I then discovered that my age wasn't even an issue; they were surprised because I'm female! There were quite a few guys in their late 30s, 40s, and older considering it, and no-one turned a hair. So I don't think it'll be an issue.
Timescale...
I didn't hurry that much, because I planned for it all to be fun, and I also had to earn a living at the same time. OTOH, I didn't think I should waste too many years. So...
Sept 1999 - June 2000 PPL(H)
Hourbuilding, aka fun flying, until Feb 2001
Feb 2001 - June 2001 CPL(H) ground exams by self study and at Bristol Ground School
More fun flying...er, I mean hour building.
Sept - Nov 2001 CPL(H) flying course
2002 - more hour building, mainly on two trips, to US and Russia
Jan/Feb 2003 - FI course, finally passing it in April...long story.
I found everything enjoyable but reasonably challenging, except the CPL ground exams which were a huge amount of work and at least 50% boring, and the FI course which was the hardest thing I've ever done.
There are threads about a lot of it; they might still be around if you do a search. After the FI course, I decided to stop living my life on PPRuNe - no more diary-type threads!
When I decided to get a CPL and FI rating, everyone seemed really surprised. I thought that was because of my age; I mean, it did seem kinda silly in the normal way one looks at things to be spending all that money at that age. I then discovered that my age wasn't even an issue; they were surprised because I'm female! There were quite a few guys in their late 30s, 40s, and older considering it, and no-one turned a hair. So I don't think it'll be an issue.
Timescale...
I didn't hurry that much, because I planned for it all to be fun, and I also had to earn a living at the same time. OTOH, I didn't think I should waste too many years. So...
Sept 1999 - June 2000 PPL(H)
Hourbuilding, aka fun flying, until Feb 2001
Feb 2001 - June 2001 CPL(H) ground exams by self study and at Bristol Ground School
More fun flying...er, I mean hour building.
Sept - Nov 2001 CPL(H) flying course
2002 - more hour building, mainly on two trips, to US and Russia
Jan/Feb 2003 - FI course, finally passing it in April...long story.
I found everything enjoyable but reasonably challenging, except the CPL ground exams which were a huge amount of work and at least 50% boring, and the FI course which was the hardest thing I've ever done.
There are threads about a lot of it; they might still be around if you do a search. After the FI course, I decided to stop living my life on PPRuNe - no more diary-type threads!
My two cents.
Difficult to tell. For an instructor rating I would think, that the flying part is not that important. Theory and teaching experience would be more important. A comparision of the subjects a new CFI has to learn would probably be more interesting, than just comparing the fligth hours required.
How much ADM and risk management is covered, or teaching methods and so on. A good instructor must be a good teacher, not necessarily the best pilot. But he should know how to save the day for everybody.
Difficult to tell. For an instructor rating I would think, that the flying part is not that important. Theory and teaching experience would be more important. A comparision of the subjects a new CFI has to learn would probably be more interesting, than just comparing the fligth hours required.
How much ADM and risk management is covered, or teaching methods and so on. A good instructor must be a good teacher, not necessarily the best pilot. But he should know how to save the day for everybody.
Safety in aviation has reached a standard, where dicussions which break it down to "how many hours does your instructor have" are useless. JAR has yet to prove that it is saver then any other regulation. I have flown with pilots which were trained under JAR and they scared the s**** out of me. They fly as happy VFR into IMC as "FAR" pilots. Common sense you do not get by regulations, neither by an instructor that has 50 hours more. It is the attitude towards flying you learn during your flight training that makes the difference. I had hardcore european instructors (in the sense that they where absolutely sure that the US license is worth less) and US instructors and some even had both. And from my humble point of view, the best instructors where those that acctualy liked their job. Their had more knowledge and a better attitude then those who where just building hours. And that goes for both worlds.
It was not my intention to pick on the hours builder. Most of them try to do a good job and a lot of them like instructing. Every pilot wants to move up to something bigger. To do that you have to build hours. Doing it as an instructor is not bad. Flying sightseeing tours probably gives you way less experience in the same number of hours.
For a pilot in the US it is often the only possibility to build hours. For a 135 operation you need a minimum of 500 hours. There aren't a lot of 91 jobs around. The insurances make it even more difficult to find a job.
It is not important how many hours the new instructor had or who much time the instructor course took. It is what he learned and what attitude he has towards flying and towards his students. And there are those things, that you can't learn in hundred years which make the difference between an good and an excellent instructor.
For a pilot in the US it is often the only possibility to build hours. For a 135 operation you need a minimum of 500 hours. There aren't a lot of 91 jobs around. The insurances make it even more difficult to find a job.
It is not important how many hours the new instructor had or who much time the instructor course took. It is what he learned and what attitude he has towards flying and towards his students. And there are those things, that you can't learn in hundred years which make the difference between an good and an excellent instructor.
Yup, now it is getting interesting.
Acctualy I am never realy serious, life is to short.
But here it comes. I will try again to explain what I mean. But reading the replies, I am not realy good at it.
The 100h instructor who is to afraid to let go of the controls should never have passed the test anyway - or nowhere. You do not become a CFI only by flying some fixed number of hours. That would be completely the wrong way. You have to pass a few test after all.
The 10'000h pilot that teaches the first time, is not very good at teaching either. But that is what makes the difference. Beeing a good teacher is what counts. You can train for 10, 30 or 50 flight hours to become an instructor. Students will surprise you anyway. Therefore you need a good knowledge about the learning process. But that is normaly learned during ground school.
All I wanted to make clear is, that comparing required flight hours does not say much about the quality of an instructor course. I bet there are still corners in this world, which have higher required flight hours then the US, but ADM, CRM, fundamentals of instruction and risk management are not covered during those instructor courses, but are subjects which are required by the FAA. I believe, that those points are much more important then 50 hours more of flight time. And you need to compare the ground school, too.
I had my share of instructors that wanted to pass their experience on. Most of the time it scared the s*** out of me and one almost killed me and one almost wrecked the ship. I prefer the calm instructor, who goes by the book and shows me different techniques which are well accepted. But that is what you learn during any instructor course, or at least should learn.
By the way, the whole flight training did not change a lot since the WWII. Thanks to the way regulations are made, that will not change soon, but I believe we could train pilots in less hours to higher standards, just by changing the way of teaching.
Had a discussion once with Shawn Coyle about strategie of control. Very interesting. Much more than picking on US-CFI's because they have less hours
;-)))))
Oh FITS is a good source, too.
Now I'm off to the beach
Acctualy I am never realy serious, life is to short.
But here it comes. I will try again to explain what I mean. But reading the replies, I am not realy good at it.
The 100h instructor who is to afraid to let go of the controls should never have passed the test anyway - or nowhere. You do not become a CFI only by flying some fixed number of hours. That would be completely the wrong way. You have to pass a few test after all.
The 10'000h pilot that teaches the first time, is not very good at teaching either. But that is what makes the difference. Beeing a good teacher is what counts. You can train for 10, 30 or 50 flight hours to become an instructor. Students will surprise you anyway. Therefore you need a good knowledge about the learning process. But that is normaly learned during ground school.
All I wanted to make clear is, that comparing required flight hours does not say much about the quality of an instructor course. I bet there are still corners in this world, which have higher required flight hours then the US, but ADM, CRM, fundamentals of instruction and risk management are not covered during those instructor courses, but are subjects which are required by the FAA. I believe, that those points are much more important then 50 hours more of flight time. And you need to compare the ground school, too.
I had my share of instructors that wanted to pass their experience on. Most of the time it scared the s*** out of me and one almost killed me and one almost wrecked the ship. I prefer the calm instructor, who goes by the book and shows me different techniques which are well accepted. But that is what you learn during any instructor course, or at least should learn.
By the way, the whole flight training did not change a lot since the WWII. Thanks to the way regulations are made, that will not change soon, but I believe we could train pilots in less hours to higher standards, just by changing the way of teaching.
Had a discussion once with Shawn Coyle about strategie of control. Very interesting. Much more than picking on US-CFI's because they have less hours
;-)))))
Oh FITS is a good source, too.
Now I'm off to the beach
Last edited by Rotorbee; 16th Aug 2004 at 12:28.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: W'n. USA--full time RV
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
strategy of control?
Don't stop now, expand on that concept. Not a US buzzphrase; is it pilot control input strategy, or administrative instructor-pilot obedience training? Is there a text? I don't recall seeing the words in Cyc/Coll (too lazy to reread the book looking for this new term).
Expound. Eager minds salivate for wisdom even as we click . . .
Expound. Eager minds salivate for wisdom even as we click . . .
Ha, gotcha. Now you are hooked. Knew it would work. Mention somebody famous and everybody jumps to attention.
Once upon a time I lost a bet to Shawn Coyle. Read the book and you know why. Strategie of control is not in the book, it was just a discussion while I paid my dept. Ask him.
After that thread, I do not believe, that I am able to explain that concept.
sniff - nobody understands me anyway
rather go to the beach
Once upon a time I lost a bet to Shawn Coyle. Read the book and you know why. Strategie of control is not in the book, it was just a discussion while I paid my dept. Ask him.
After that thread, I do not believe, that I am able to explain that concept.
sniff - nobody understands me anyway
rather go to the beach
The 100h instructor who is to afraid to let go of the controls should never have passed the test anyway
Instuctors Ratings
Just a post to see what the general consensus is on when instructors ratings should be issued. I personally am a big believer that IR's should not be issued to pilots with less than 3000 hrstt. Though pilots can be taught the basics of teaching helicopter flight and emergency procedures it doesn't seem to be a substantial benchmark for someone who is paying $35,000+ to get their lisence. Thoughts everybody?
Up & Away,
All the 'ability' in the world doesn't account for 'experience'. As I said, you can be taught how to be an instructor & pass the test but I think that with less than 3000 hrs your personal learning curve is still a bit too steep to be giving others what they are paying for. It's a lot of money to pay & you want the best benefit of teaching ability & experience to get the most out of it.
All the 'ability' in the world doesn't account for 'experience'. As I said, you can be taught how to be an instructor & pass the test but I think that with less than 3000 hrs your personal learning curve is still a bit too steep to be giving others what they are paying for. It's a lot of money to pay & you want the best benefit of teaching ability & experience to get the most out of it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 3 Degrees North
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3000 hours TT might be a little too high, something like 1000 TT benchmark is more achievable. One must remember that most instructor jobs are seen as a stepping ladder in the industry. I agree that a 250 hours TT instructor does not have the ability to impart serious experience onto a newbie.
So far, the CASA system (OZ) is the only one asking for a higher minimum TT hours before an IR can be issued. I have flown with so called experienced pilots trained by other countries, and I will trust an Aussie before any others. (1500 hours below)
I had the privilege to fly with IR's with 5000 + hours TT to 15000+ hours TT and believe me EXPERIENCE counts...
So far, the CASA system (OZ) is the only one asking for a higher minimum TT hours before an IR can be issued. I have flown with so called experienced pilots trained by other countries, and I will trust an Aussie before any others. (1500 hours below)
I had the privilege to fly with IR's with 5000 + hours TT to 15000+ hours TT and believe me EXPERIENCE counts...
Out of interest, at what sort of experience level can you become an instructor in the military in Oz and other countries? What would be the average experience of a military instructor? Don't want to start the big military vs civilian thing, just interested.
In Oz you can't get a rotary instructor rating with less than 400 hours.
Personally I had 1100 hours when I did mine and I reckon that was only just enough. As any instructor knows, you're learning heaps as well as the student.
Bellfest, with your reference to value for money, would you be willing to pay more for a more experienced instructor?
In Oz you can't get a rotary instructor rating with less than 400 hours.
Personally I had 1100 hours when I did mine and I reckon that was only just enough. As any instructor knows, you're learning heaps as well as the student.
Bellfest, with your reference to value for money, would you be willing to pay more for a more experienced instructor?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South Africa
Age: 57
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a low time instructor and I would be the first to admit that experience counts for a great deal. Still, a newbie instructor can only operate under the supervision of a grade 2 or higher (here in RSA anyway), who must fly a check ride with the student at least every 10 hours. The argument in favour of low time instructors is that they remember better learning to fly themselves, and tend to be more enthusiastic and thorough in their briefings (if anything we 'over-instruct' I am told). The final decision should rest with the student, I would think, and coyote makes a good point about cost. Lastly, without instructing, how do I get to be a high time pilot?